| Newt & Callista on the burdens Sarbanes-Oxley places on economic growth, and urge its repeal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Tag
|  Email |
 Print |
|
| Comments |
 By
jmz @
Monday, November 17, 2008 12:09 PM
|
|
Newt - I agree and not just for start up companies, but existing ones as well. I work for an Semiconductor company who competes worldwide with non US competitors. We have the burden of these additional annual costs for SOX that our competitors don't have. It also gives the customer leverage on acceptances and final payments they normally wouldn't have and in my opinion that's not in the best interst of the investor. Sure there are some bad companies out there but this is not the fix, has become more of a burden for all companies and doesn't address the problem. jmz
|
|
|
|
By
Anonymous @
Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:26 PM
|
Newt,
I usually agree with you and your positions. However I feel you are absolutely incorrect on this one. The only problem with Sarbanes-Oxley is that it is not being used correctly. If used corrertly many of these lying, cheating executives and board memeberswould have their butts in jail for the falsification of financial records given to their shareholders. I own over 100 stocks in 5 different brokerage accounts. I have been investing for 5 decades, I attend a minimum of 10 shareholder meetings a year and listen to at least quarterly 10 earnings call every month. The barriers and costs that you allege occur for start companies is nothing compaired to the absolute bogus compensation and bonus and bailout packagesw that these executives receive and theit BOD budies allow at the cost of value to the shareholders and the loss of jobs to their employees. If you really care about what's hurt the individual shareholder and which lying, thieving executive SOBs ought to be procecuted via Sarbanes-Oxley criteria, I'll be more than happy to provide names. JWG
|
|
|
Click Here to post a comment
|
|
|